[Taxacom] More precise sound bite

[John Grehan]

I think this is a very pertinent point. In my own dealing with human
origins we have to alternative classifications - one supporting
human-chimpanzee monophyly, the other human orangutan monophyly. The
first would predict human-chimpanzee apomorphies, or even chimpanzee
plesiomorphies in fossil hominids, the second would predict
human-orangutan apomorphies or orangutan plesiomorphies in fossil
hominids. So far only the second classification has corroborated
predictions - not that that has made any difference to the continued
popularity of the former classification. So even predictive power can be
ignored.

John Grehan

-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Mike Dallwitz

Have classifications based on cladistic methods been shown to have
better predictivity than other classifications? Predictivity could (for
example) be defined as in
.......
Does this mean that belonging to a paraphyletic group such as reptiles
usually has less predictive value than belonging to any of the
monophyletic groups to which reptiles belong?

--
Mike Dallwitz
Contact information: http://delta-intkey.com/contact/dallwitz.htm
DELTA home page: http://delta-intkey.com

_______________________________________________

Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
these methods:

(1) http://taxacom.markmail.org

Or (2) a Google search specified as:
site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here